Best type of paper for photography reproduction

[FocusMagPublisher]

What is the best type of paper (brand, weight, coating type) for reproduction of photography? Would you say it's dull, silk or gloss?

 

[gordo]

What is the best type of paper (brand, weight, coating type) for reproduction of photography? Would you say it's dull, silk or gloss?

The paper surface finish contributes to the aesthetics of the photography - i.e. it's a personal not a technical decision. Your printer should be able to provide samples to help you decide on the look you're after. On a related note, FM screening will give you a much more photographic look to the reproduction than conventional AM/XM screening.

best, gordon p

my print blog here: Quality In Print current topic: HiFi color strategies

 

[FocusMagPublisher]

The paper surface finish contributes to the aesthetics of the photography - i.e. it's a personal not a technical decision. Your printer should be able to provide samples to help you decide on the look you're after. On a related note, FM screening will give you a much more photographic look to the reproduction than conventional AM/XM screening.

best, gordon p

my print blog here: Quality In Print current topic: HiFi color strategies

What is FM?

 

[gordo]

What is FM?

When a continuous tone image is printed it must first be converted into a halftone screened image (because printing presses generally cannot print continuous tone images). There are two primary methods for doing this conversion: AM halftone screening and FM halftone screening.
If you look at a magazine like "Time" or "People" under a loupe you will see AM screening.
If you look at many Yellow Pages Directories or Home Depot and Walmart newspaper flyers or the output of the majority of inkjet printers you will see FM halftone screening.
FM halftone screening can provide a photographic reproduction on press preserving all of the details of the original image. AM, or conventional halftone screening, under close examination does not.

best, gordon p

 

[SteveAgfa]

Interesting angle Gordo:

I suspect you are also speaking of mimicking the silver grain of the photographic emulsion.
If (in part) so, would you then suggest that 1st order FM even better matches the look of
photographs, over that of 2nd order FM?

And, no, there's not another AM/XM/FM debate brewing.

 

[gordo]

Interesting angle Gordo:
I suspect you are also speaking of mimicking the silver grain of the photographic emulsion.
If (in part) so, would you then suggest that 1st order FM even better matches the look of photographs, over that of 2nd order FM?
And, no, there's not another AM/XM/FM debate brewing.

Then why do I feel like I'm texting myself into a trap? ;-)

FM provides a photographic fidelity because there are more dot edge transitions per halftone cell area compared to an AM screen.

Let me quote from your own literature when Agfa introduced CristalRaster (an FM screen) in 1993 - of course there's been a great deal of screening/imaging development since then but the basics haven't changed.

Quote begins:

What every printer dreams of.

no moiré, no rosettes, no screen angles, no rainbows, no line screen ruling, no loss of detail

You've never seen printing like this before. It's photographic quality reproduction, made possible by Agfa CristalRaster Technology. And it will change the way you look at printing and prepress.
Take out a loupe, and you'll see what makes Agfa CristalRaster so remarkable: uniform microdots, randomly arranged for each separation. Simply put, it's the first practical application of screenless printing - the long-sought "holy grail" of photography.

End of quote

The same value propositions for this class of screening is also made by other vendors, e.g. Screen for Spekta, Fuji for Taffeta, Kodak for Staccato, etc. As I said, the screening and imaging technology have improved a great deal since then, however the benefits over AM/XM screening remain - particularly if, the OP is looking for photographic quality.

best, gordon p

my print blog here: Quality In Print current topic: HiFi color strategies

 

[SteveAgfa]

Hi Gordo:

Nice (non?) answer.

I suspect that you'd agree that a 1st order FM screen such as Stacatto 21 or CristalRaster, or Diamond, etc. would further the "photographic" effect FocusMag might be looking for, when it comes to simulating the inherent grain of the photographic original.

Regards,

 

[gordo]

Hi Gordo:
Nice (non?) answer.
I suspect that you'd agree that a 1st order FM screen such as Stacatto 21 or CristalRaster, or Diamond, etc. would further the "photographic" effect FocusMag might be looking for, when it comes to simulating the inherent grain of the photographic original.
Regards,

A 1st order FM screen such as Stacatto 21 or CristalRaster, or Diamond, etc. can appear grainy in large flat tone areas. But I'm not suggesting that the OP use that type of FM screening.

I suggest that he pick up a copy of lenswork magazine from any well stocked magazine/bookstore (or order from http://www.lenswork.com/) and judge for himself if that is the look he wants. He could also go into a local Home Depot and put a loupe to the Behr and Disney paint brochures and look at how the photos are reproduced there to determine whether this type of screening provides the fidelity in print reproduction he's look for.

Unfortunately, I no longer have the resources to supply him myself with specific photo magazines/books that are printed using FM screening in different countries that could serve as examples.

best, gordon p

 

[oxburger]

I believe "National Geographic" prints using Stochastic screening. Anyone know for sure? Not sure of any others.

Anyone here even using XM (Sublima) or Stochastic?

 

[gordo]

I believe "National Geographic" prints using Stochastic screening. Anyone know for sure? Not sure of any others.

Canadian and Australian Geographic are printed offset with FM screening. Don't know about the other country editions though.
The US Geographic is printed gravure therefore not FM.

best, gordon p